No Rock And Roll Fun

NOT QUITE GRABBING THE POINT: There's a frankly absurd piece in the East Bay Express by Eric K Arnold, who believes that the current Outrage campaign against reggae hate songs is, oh yes, racist. Arnold believes that the very term "reggae bigot" is "oxymoronic" because of reggae's tradition of making songs which attack racial injustice. It's not quite clear if he really believes that making music in a genre where others have made songs calling for freedom immediately makes it impossible for someone to ever be a bigot - in which case, Skrewdriver can't possibly be racist as they're making music in the same field as The Specials and Lenny Kravitz - but it's when he gets to the crux of his "argument" that he really starts to make enormous leaps of cod-logic:

To be sure, Jamaican artists make an easy target for gay activists. The homophobia in some cases is undeniable, even if it has to be translated for non-patois-speaking folks. But from a political and economic standpoint, there may be other reasons for trying to stamp out Jamaican artists' careers this way. Black music forms like reggae and rap have all but taken over the UK, and the possibility of a vibrant Afro-Caribbean culture emerging from its urban ghettos has to be seen as anathema to the more conservative factions of Jamaica's onetime colonial master, be they gay or straight.

First of all, Arnold seems to be implying that the calls to kill gays and lesbians don't really count as they're made in patois, and thus your average English homosexual wouldn't understand them if they didn't have them translated for them. Which is on a par with saying that Mein Kampf really shouldn't have troubled the British, as it was only upsetting if you sat down with an English-German dictionary.

But then to suggest that the Outrage campaign is inspired by fear of "reggae and rap" "taking over the UK" is just astonishing. The need to add "and rap" into the mix at least suggests he realises that reggae on its own is no more popular than many other sorts of music, and the whole "taking over" phrase itself - like some sort of Daily Mail editorial on asylum seekers, suggests that it's Arnold himself, rather than Outrage, which has some issues to work through.

But then Arnold warns about what the risk would be if leaning on the homophobic reggae artists worked:

"There's a lesson to be learned here from the censorship troubles faced by hip-hop a decade ago, when its mainstream appeal and economic clout was just starting to become apparent -- much as with dancehall today. Censoring "offensive" lyrics by Jamaican artists could result in the same kind of dumbing-down and mainstream filtration that saturated rap music following the PMRC/Christian Coalition machinations of the '90s."

In other words, Arnold believes that if musicians are asked to choose between being welcome in London and making songs calling for the chi-chi men to be gunned down, we're in danger of forcing reggae into being little more than Will Smith with dub. Isn't this rather misunderestimating the talent of reggae artists in the first place? Most of the reggae greats have managed to make complex, interesting, engaged music without resorting to a spot of queerbashing.

Arnold then switches back to inspecting Outrage's conscience for signs of racism:

At the very least, there's a danger in any predominantly white organization attempting to characterize a predominantly black culture according to its own agenda. OutRage's inflammatory press releases, for instance, detail instance after instance of lyrical "homophobic hate crimes" by Jamaican artists, but fail to mention that most of the songs are several years old.

Some of the songs are quite old; but most of them are still part of the targetted artist's live shows - indeed, Arnold's own piece quotes the Jamaica Observer on this very point: "Beenie Man, who was celebrating his birthday, took time to point out that he did not apologize for his gay-bashing lyrics, and went on to perform some of his antigay tunes." So it doesn't matter if someone's singing hate songs now, so long as they were written a while ago?

OutRage's strategy seems to be to force the Jamaican government into action by blockading what is in effect an export commodity. But why not go after the officials who have turned a blind eye to violence against gays and demand change on a legislative level? Instead, OutRage's campaign has dehumanized dancehall artists, and by forcing the cancellation of shows, has imposed de facto economic sanctions on an already poor nation tragically ravaged by violence -- only a small portion of which is directed at gays.

No, sweetcakes, Outrage's strategy is to try and create an atmosphere where everyone accepts songs calling for the murder of people based on their sexuality is unacceptable by targeting artists who perform hate songs. Outrage are not targetting reggae acts wholesale, and they're certainly not "blockading" Jamaican artists wholesale. I'm not sure if Arnold is guilty of sloppy journalism here or if he really does believe that Outrage are trying to stop all reggae concerts in the UK.

Furthermore, there are plenty of Jamaican artists who express no antigay sentiments whatsoever in their music, and homophobic statements are just a small part of the overall lyrical content of any one of the more controversial artists. Reducing these artists to one epithet -- gay-basher -- is both inherently racist and revisionary.

But Outrage are carefully targetting just those artists whose lyrics finger them as holding hostile attitudes. To suggest that Outrage is trying to portray all reggae acts as violently homophobic is at best a very muddle-headed understanding of their point of view.

No, Mr. Arnold: this isn't about race.